Congress claims space resource rights for Americans to exploit 'new frontier'
Source: The Guardian
Asteroid platinum and the briny water on Mars may soon be available for plunder, Republicans and Democrats have agreed, advancing a bill that would grant space resource rights and could challenge an international treaty on outer space.
The US Senate passed the Space Act of 2015 this week, sending its revisions of the bill back to the House for an expected approval, after which it would land on the presidents desk. The bill has a slew of provisions to encourage commercial companies that want to explore space and exploit its resources, granting asteroid resource and space resource rights to US citizens who managed to acquire the resource themselves.
The lawmakers defined space resource as an abiotic resource in situ in outer space that would include water and minerals but not life.
Space law is a new frontier for the lawmakers and lawyers planted on Earth, and although the commercial spaceflight sector has grown enormously in the past decade including Elon Musks SpaceX and Richard Bransons Virgin Galactic the prospects of space mining have remained unclear.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/13/congress-claims-space-resource-rights-for-americans-to-exploit-new-frontier
Galileo126
(2,016 posts)Then we have the resources to "fix" our own freaking planet.
Get over it, money-hungry jerks.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Newsjock
(11,733 posts)n/t
longship
(40,416 posts)turbinetree
(24,703 posts)claim space domain, why don't you get this house or planet in order first
We are seeing first hand how this planet is dying because of the plunder and the track record caused by the human species and its record speaks for its self
Honk----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Europe shipped their dissidents and convicts over seas for years instead of fixing the problems in their own countries. Were science fiction writers right and that is how space will be exploited - by shipping Earth's problems to the Moon or to Mars?
longship
(40,416 posts)It is about $20,000, and that is low-Earth orbit. If one wants to send that same kilogram to a near-Earth asteroid, we're talking about a whole lotta cash.
Plus, then there's the problem that the US has no vehicle to get us there. Sadly, the Saturn V (the only one with the capability) died with the Apollo program. The Space Shuttle never got beyond low-Earth orbit, and was a stretch to get to the Hubble Space Telescope, which it thankfully did multiple times, the last time with an emergency rescue backup shuttle on the launch pad. Yup! Space is a dangerous place.
branford
(4,462 posts)to invest more in space research, including any spin-off technologies.
Space, whether it be Earth orbit, Mars or anywhere else, is big enough for everyone to seek resources.
Quite frankly, I'd rather people mined Mars or the Belt, than suffer the environmental problems with mining on Earth for resources we absolutely require. Even "green" technologies need rare and expensive elements.
longship
(40,416 posts)Unfortunately, landing on Mars is really, really difficult. Very little atmospheric resistance, and a bit too massive. See Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity Rover) landing for details.
The moon is much, much easier. Just ask Buzz Aldrin.
It is all about the depth of the gravity well and the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.
branford
(4,462 posts)I simply believe anything that reasonably incentivizes research into space technologies is a good thing.
We will continue to exploit resources for the indefinite future. I would prefer it be done off-Earth for a multitude of reasons, from environmental to aesthetic. The spin-off technologies are just a bonus.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)There have been serious studies of asteroid mining since the 1970s. K. Eric Drexler did one using his concepts for an advanced lightsail (what most people call a 'solar sail').
Once you've achieved low-Earth orbit, there are a number of very efficient, low-thrust propulsion systems you can use: electric propulsion (ion and plasma engines), lightsails, O'Neill mass-driver reaction engines (MDRE), etc.
Getting stuff down from orbit is considerably easier; gravity and air resistance work for you on the way down. You just need a heat shield and. possibly a parachute if you're returning delicate manufactured goods. Bulk materials, platinum group metals, iron, nickel , cobalt, etc can just impact in the ocean or a desert area.
longship
(40,416 posts)That is the issue. Getting out of the Earth's gravity well. Once one is in low-Earth orbit most of the job is done. TLI* can be done with very little delta-V**. It is Earth launches that are the problem, not landings. That is why it takes a 36 story tall rocket, the Saturn V, to get to the moon. (Also known as the Up Goer Five).
Remember, the controlling science here is that mean, old rocket equation.
Physics 101
*Trans-Lunar injection.
**change in velocity
Baclava
(12,047 posts)Nothing need ever 'come back to earth' - the moon colony could use the metals to build their own space fleet.
and we shouldn't be looking to live ON the moon, but IN the moon
Moon Base Possible through Lava Tubes
Scientists and theorists had come up with many ideas to open up a functional base on the moon but the issue of radiation outweighs the possibilities. Scientists have recently discovered lava tubes where a base could be safely constructed. In volcanic tubes are now considered to be safe and ideal sites for settling in.
Scientists are accessing the situation and are trying to figure out that how stable these tubes are, they are studying the features and they have discovered that the tubes which are at least 1 km in size could be ideal for human settlement. This new development has raised a lot of hope in the scientific community who have goals to overcome the challenges posed by the lunar environment.
The moon has a rougher environment that the earth. The moon has no atmosphere, this means that there is no protection from the radiation from the sun, there is no magnetic field and that is the reason why the moon has a higher rate of meteor impacts. The surface of the moon is not habitable because of meteor showers and extreme temperatures, during the course of a lunar day, the temperatures could vary by several 100 degrees.
The lava tubes is ideal place because this area is shielded from these dangers, it is expected that the lunar tunnels are much larger than the tunnel discovered on earth, this is because of the lower gravity factor, cave entrances called skylights are known to be the entrance to these tubes
http://www.mytechbits.com/moon-base-possible-through-lava-tubes/981287/
-----------------------
-----------------------
oh yeah - and there's water there
NASA Is Studying How to Mine the Moon for Water
There's a lot of water on the moon, and NASA wants to learn how to mine it.
Space agency scientists are developing two separate mission concepts to assess, and learn how to exploit, stores of water ice on the moon and other lunar resources. The projects called Lunar Flashlight and the ResourceProspector Mission are notionally targeted to blast off in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and aim to help humanity extend its footprint out into the solar system.
"If you're going to have humans on the moon and you need water for drinking, breathing, rocket fuel, anything you want, it's much, much cheaper to live off the land than it is to bring everything with you," said Lunar Flashlight principal investigator Barbara Cohen, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
http://www.space.com/27388-nasa-moon-mining-missions-water.html
longship
(40,416 posts)They work together; they are two sides of the same coin. They are the reason why it costs so much to transport water to the ISS and why they drink their own pee.
(No worries, from what I understand, the pee water is just fine. Apparently it is the foul smell of the place that one has to get used to.)
bananas
(27,509 posts)As Musk points out:
Musk reiterated the origin of the SpaceX production model, saying fuel is only 0.3 percent of the total cost of a rocket, with construction materials accounting for no more than 2 percent of the total cost, which for the Falcon 9 is about $60 million.
<snip>
Musk said that a rocket's first stage accounts for three-quarters of its total price tag, so a vehicle with a reusable first stage can be produced at far less cost assuming the hardware is fully and rapidly reusable.
You could make a very cheap rocket, what's expensive is a rocket that can reliably make it to orbit without blowing up or crashing.
Nuclear energy has a similar problem - you could build a very cheap nuclear power plant, but building one that can operate reliably for 30 years without blowing up or melting down is expensive.
longship
(40,416 posts)That is why it takes a fucking 36 story tall Saturn V rocket to get three dudes to the moon, almost all of it fuel (and oxidizer).
The Earth's gravity well is a rather huge issue. The moon's is easy in comparison. Unfortunately, Mars is a bitch, too little atmosphere and too much mass.
Physics 101, my friend.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The Chinese are already planning permanent moon bases. The only difference between the Americas and space is that there are likely no natives to kill, everything else is set. Remember, the English scoffed at colonization until the Spanish came back with lots of Aztec Gold, enough to fuel the Armada that would have wrecked England if she did not have to call upon her pirates for aid.
As far as "fixing this planet" that will not happen, save for technology to restore the ozone layer. If you are reading this screen, you are using tech made in space, so anyone who thinks that we can dump science and sing kum by ya around a campfire and go back to mother nature is a fool. Human explore, humans develop, and it is likely we will need space explorations, and yes colonization, to survive.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/get-your-pickaxe-and-spacecraft-ready-space-mining-might-be-legal-very-soon-180957266/#ePDlk3x4T3GbwpRg.99
http://www.popsci.com/congress-votes-to-legalize-asteroid-mining
Some ideas for exploitation are about slowly moving an asteroid to an orbit where it can be mined more conveniently. Since they moved the whole thing, would they have 'exclusive' rights to it? Or can someone else start mining a different face of it? If they do get exclusive rights, how much would they have to change the orbit to get the rights?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)some bits of science they absolutely like (though I'm sure the fundies reject gravitation)
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"